Assessing the Use of Video Conferencing for Linking Teacher Preparation Programs with K-12 Schools (Dr. Lehman)

Assessing the Use of Video Conferencing for Linking Teacher Preparation Programs with K-12 Schools (Dr. Lehman)

I would like to mainly discuss how “diversity” is examined in Dr. Lehman and Dr. Richardson’s study. First of all, I was impressed by the fact that one of the participating pre-service teachers had a chance to reach one of core-issues of diversity. He basically expressed his realization that students were “bright” even if they are from a “poor” socio-economic background. His stereotype was thus corrected and he now had a better understanding of diversity.

Although “technology” and “diversity” are one of the major topics of this study, the technology part was very much emphasized and “diversity” issues were not studied very much.

I understand that from the Table 1 (Summary of Pre-Service Teachers’ Responses to Likert-type Items) we see fairly positive responses in general. I would be interested in seeing their responses to some items that are also inquiring into their perceptions and understanding of diversity. I would be interested in the relationship between diversity and technology; for instance, “Is the technology more/less helpful to have students realize diversity issues more than face-to-face environments?” Or questions such as “Do you think technology will be more helpful in the future?” might be interesting. In this particular study, diversity questions were addressed only qualitatively.

It would have been interesting and beneficial to students if there was a multi-disciplinary (English, History, Social Sciences, etc.) topic of diversity was included in one of their lessons.

I was also wondering if there was an English as a Second Language class in the school?

Eventually, video conferencing will become a useful and more dependable communication tool. And we will be using the tool just like we are using TV or cellphones now. Then an interesting question is what type of tools will help what type of learning and instruction.

Shigetake

P.S. In Japan, all world maps has Japan right in the center (not in the right end)!

Activity theory as the basis for developing blended learning in the workplace by Dr. Schaffer

What I learned from this presentation and Collis & Margaryan (2004) is good potentials of Activity Theory (AT) and its use for learning environments. I was especially interested in their descriptions of problem-solution outcomes of the assessment skills, collaborative learning (social interactions), involvement of supervisor/coach (although it's questionable per p. 50) and experts, authenticity in learning, and use of technology with an abundance of resources.

However, I still have hard time understanding what AT really is and whether its application to instructional designs and learning environments is real. I would like to see more examples of actual instructional materials (besides the one of "Health Risk Assessment: Roster: Activities") to solve my dilemma. I also would like to know more about what constitutes "blended learning," especially the aspect that is not the online learning aspect.

First, I am trying to answer Dr. Schaffer's question on his last Powerpoint slide now. "Does AT as applied to instructional design makes senseto you?" My answer is no. For the crucial part of "from activity system to course design" (p. 44), the steps used are modification of Jonassen & Rohrer Murphy (1999), which are I think "constructivist" steps. This use of constructivist steps makes me wonder whether AT is really necessary for instructional designs. What makes AT really unique? I would like to know if a combination of situated learning and constructivistic principles for learning might be sufficient to make such instructional designs as the Shell EP case happen.

Second, the social aspect is the most important aspect of AT. But this article reports Shell’s learning environments and participants that are significantly multicultural and international, and Collis and Margaryan say these are a "major challenge" (p. 50). It appears to me that the most important part of the design based on AT is the most problematic. A case study that would involve only a local learning environment might be more helpful to research on instructional designs derived from AT. Although I am not sure, AT itself does not seem to offer a solution to those multicultural or diversity issues.

The blended learning that was used at Shell EP seems to be for acquiring skills and knowledge. (I might not be discussion any AT issues here.) I was wondering if the health risk assessment skills and knowledge are really "experiential" (p. 38) and helpful. The instructions look to me all about "information" and how to solve problems at the information level. In the case of real emergency involving health hazards, assessments are the initial step before designing what to do and also actually implementing some counter-measures to stop or reduce the hazards.

Shigetake

Reflection on Blended Learning (Danny Wittenborn)

I am sorry to say that I did not understand a lot of things because of the technological problems and my limited cognitive abilities to understand the online presentation.

My technological problems were follwoing:
1. I could not move the curser on the screen to say "I have a question." So, I needed Dr. Schaffer's help. While he was helping me, I could not lieten to the introduction part of the presentation. (But in normal communicative circumstances, I could have still catched up later. However, in this particular class, I was not able to. The reasons are 2.)
2. There are four channels of communication in front of me at the same time.
(1) Powerpoint
(2) Chat
(3) Sound
(4) Image of the presenter
Especially the simultaneous presentation of (1) and (2), which were conveying separate discourses, are cognitively really demanding. And the powerpoint slides were pretty wordy. I indicated "Please slow down" in Chat but it was not very slowed down. (But Dan was kind enough to recap the general picture of the program after the request.)

It was not my first time to use Macromedia Breeze. Previously, the presenters were instructional technologist. Their presentations were more understandable. I think the big difference was the speed of delivery and constant interactions between the students and the teacher.

As for his study of blended learning, I thought Nuray's question was good. She asked which was the focus of the study? Either the method of delivery of instruction or the content area of PLM education? Dan's answer was both. I think what I mean here is that I was not very sure about the research design of the study. Probably because he wanted to measure the impact of the two independent variables, I was not sure what he was trying to find out during the presentation. (But Nuray helped me with her question.) Also, there was no comparison group. Although the post test showed a good improvement from the pre test, I was not sure what independent variable was causing the improvement. I was not sure that the improvement was caused by the effect of one of the independent variables, any other confounding variables (or just the practice effect).

I was also wondering what field of study this research was conducted in? Is this study valuable in Technology (since Dan is in the school of Technology) or Education? There was no literature review during the presentation. I was not sure why this study was important in what field. I was not sure what contribution this study was making to the field. I think there are a lot of studies that showed positive effects of blended learning, and the effects are larger than in somc comparable traditional learning environments (as Dr. Schaffer was explaining at the end of the class). Because I was there in the class as a student in Ed Tech, I should have asked questions regarding the "scope" and "contribution to the field" questions up front in the beginning of the class.

Shigetake

Reflection on Systemic Change (Dr. Watson)

I am sorry for the delayed post. I did not have a chance to read Reigeluth's article until this weekend. I tried to review Dr. Watson's powerpoint and post last night, but the Blackboard was down. It is now up but I could not find his poweroint there. So I reflect on Systemic Change based on my memory of Dr. Watson's presentation and Reigeluth's article.

Systemic Change (which I think is mainly advocated by Dr. Reigeluth at Indiana University that Dr. Watson has been working with) is the entire change in education that involves large educational systems (at times the system could be at the school district level and at times it could be at the ecological level) and that has to occur due to this historical, societal paradign shifts from Industrial Age to Information Age. This educational change involves individualized, cooperative, attainment-based (p. 7), and meaningful learing, and teachers as facilitators (among other features).

I was very excited about an abundant of possible opportunities (that I could not even imagine) for instructional technologists to be needed in such changes.

But I was not so sure about what specific plan of actions the proponents of Systemic Change have in mind to make it happen. Du ringthe presentation, it really sound like they are looking at the top-down type of educational change. Not only it does not seem realistic to me, but also in Reigeluth says "it is simply not logistically possible to change the current system everywhere at once" (p. 5). When Dr. Watson mentioned "school district" (? I forgot the exact wording), I thought it could be a good geographical range in which some experimental studies on systemic change can be carried out. But I still cannot imagine or visualize any entire change that could happen. I can only imagine a large scale of "piecemeal changes" because there are some type of national standards that I assume cannot be disregarded and because there are conservative cultural norms of people (teachers, students, parents) that I assume are pretty persistent. I can only imagine such because I personally really don't think that the tools that the advanced technology offers are "powerful" enough to shift education from "teacher-based" to "resource-based" (p. 8).

But those tools are becoming more and more powerful continuously. It is possible that they will allow a new system happen in which all those persistant factors will accordingly change some day. And it is important to conduct research and discuss pros and cons on systemic change and get ready for any possible changes.

(It is wonderful that actually in Indiana an experiment of systemic change is actually conducted for several years now. Such experiment would be very diffucult in my home country, Japan.)

Shigetake